I would say ufs2 easily wins, but remember this is the
freebsd-questions list ;) There are some differences though, ufs2
uses softupdates, not journaling(journaling is available and easy to
implement via gjournal). Softupdates I believe are a little faster
than journaling, but it's drawback is long disk checking after a dirty
shutdown. I've never had a ufs specific issue in hundreds if not
thousands of deployments, but nothing is guaranteed. ufs does have a
great track records and bunch of service hours logged.
Cool meaning I am going UFS2 on my new install!
Example after a dirty shutdown:
fsck -y
Aaah fsck :-) If I run this on an ext3 FS it tends to make things much
worse as I did it once and got left with a whole bunch of unattached
inodes :-(
reason for Linux and ext3 e2fsck is much better I have found from
personal experience!
That's actually a bit disconcerting, do you have hardware instability?
Nope! These systems are actually desktop systems which I run as servers
as I couldn't afford to buy proper systems so got a whole bunch of cheap
x86 boxes off Ebay. If running Scalix though I found it really eats up
hard drives - although running a collaboration suite on a laptop is not
the most intelligent thing to do but then what else can you do with a
portable computer with bust LCD display?
Left in my parents house in the UK now as I'm currently in Turkey but my
lab from scavenged parts and systems:
http://www.optiplex-networks.com/lab/lab.html
--
Adam Vande More
Kaya
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
